Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to prove safety. It adds useful behavioral detail: the calculation formula, the 15% cushion, preset options with a default, override semantics, and the 'rough planning math' caveat. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, formula, preset behavior, override capability, and caveat in two sentences. Every clause adds useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The presence of an output schema means return values don't need elaboration. The description covers the calculation approach, defaults, overrides, and rough-planning nature. The main gap is the lack of per-parameter semantics for most line items, but given the output schema and intuitive property names, the description is close to complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains preset values and the roles of monthlyBurn and runwayMonths, but the other nine numeric line items are only referred to generically as 'line items'. An agent gets little semantic guidance for legal, space, buildout, supplies, equipment, insurance, marketing, or softwareSetup beyond their property names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool computes an estimated launch budget for a direct primary care practice, including the exact formula: one-time setup costs plus runway reserve (monthly burn times runway months), then a total with a 15% cushion. It also explains preset starting points and line-item overrides, making the tool's function specific and distinguishable from siblings like dpc_break_even.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains how to use the tool (choose a preset, override line items) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as dpc_break_even or quote_tabflows_price. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.